Pax and Crew File Lawsuit Against Airbus
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To ugly to be a sheila Jack. IF IT IS TRUE, and the bloke is trying to make a dollar out of a aircraft malfunction, than he deserves the ridicule that will be heaped upon him, and then where does it stop? A go around, and a PAX declares that they had a nervous breakdown out of fear, talks to a few others, result: a class action against the airline in question. Then there is turbulence, can you just imagine what could happen there? As far as I am concerned the bloke did a sterling job, but to make a buck out of it (IF HE IS) is a disgrace to our profession, and absolutely unheard of from a professional pilot, but pehaps somewhere a long the line we have gone from being pilots to systems managers and have the attitude of "this sh%t should not happen to me" and somebody has to pay for it, which is now the norm, for most these days. If you are paid to do a job, and do it to the best of your ability with a good outcome that should be enough.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
The position that airline crew should refrain from suing for negligence on the basis of the fact they fly the aircraft is total arrant nonsense. If an aircraft crashed due to negligence and the crew were killed, would you deny the family of the crew the right to sue? So what is the difference?
If your car bursts into flames due to a manufacturing fault, are you telling me that the mere fact you were operating the car at the time means you should refrain from legal action?
Airline crews make claims all the time, for many different reasons including hearing loss, fumes exposure, violence encountered from passengers and harassment; all of them inherent risks in the environment we operate in that the airlines and manufacturers are required by law to mitigate.
If a fumes exposure ended your career, or caused a deformity to your children, would you refrain from taking action on the basis that you were flying the aircraft?
To single this crew out is ignorant.
That said, I really feel the content of this thread is now pushing the boundary; and if people don't know the facts, they really should refrain from silly uninformed comment.
If your car bursts into flames due to a manufacturing fault, are you telling me that the mere fact you were operating the car at the time means you should refrain from legal action?
Airline crews make claims all the time, for many different reasons including hearing loss, fumes exposure, violence encountered from passengers and harassment; all of them inherent risks in the environment we operate in that the airlines and manufacturers are required by law to mitigate.
If a fumes exposure ended your career, or caused a deformity to your children, would you refrain from taking action on the basis that you were flying the aircraft?
To single this crew out is ignorant.
That said, I really feel the content of this thread is now pushing the boundary; and if people don't know the facts, they really should refrain from silly uninformed comment.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Kremin, if you are physically hurt, like the S/O who had his nose rearranged yes, you would possibly have a case, but lets put aside this Captain who could be well innocent of the statement made, and probably bemused by the whole thing. The question remains where does all this start and finish. If you are not physically hurt, you are doing the job you are paid to do, and which you obviously chose to do, and are trained to do, when is the line crossed. Most incidents and accidents are normally made up of a number of factors as you well know, WX, systems failure, pilot error, engine and airframe failure etc, and anybody in command of a Aircraft knows, that sometime during their career, they are going to be confronted with a situation for whatever reason, that is going to test their skills and their knowledge. Regardless of all the Jesus boxes these modern Aircraft have, they are still Aircraft, a fact which is often brought home, horribly, and when you least expect it, and that is when you earn your money. Now if every Skipper sues, when a system lets him down, ( and if one Skipper sues successfully, its human nature that many more will follow) the end result does not even warrant thinking about, one hint of possible pilot error, will have the Airlines suing you for a start. If a Pilot is hurt, and cannot fly again for whatever reason, yes, he should be paid for his loss of income, his entire income, ( and don't give me this mental crap, that should have been weeded out in their early flying days, and they should not be in the job). If a Captain does go on to sue, this will open a can of worms, that are going to be hard to put back in the tin, and will do a lot of harm to the profession, which was already badly damaged in 89, and I for one hope that most pilots accept the risks as part of the job, not as a possible money grab.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote: teresa green
Couldn't agree more...
If this gets through it will never end...
Concentrate on something more relevant and that affects all pilots, not just an individuals back pocket...like fair pay rates.
If a Captain does go on to sue, this will open a can of worms, that are going to be hard to put back in the tin, and will do a lot of harm to the profession, which was already badly damaged in 89, and I for one hope that most pilots accept the risks as part of the job, not as a possible money grab.
If this gets through it will never end...
Concentrate on something more relevant and that affects all pilots, not just an individuals back pocket...like fair pay rates.
Nunc est bibendum
...and don't give me this mental crap, that should have been weeded out in their early flying days, and they should not be in the job).
Apparently in your book it's OK for physical injury to be entitled to compensation but sleepless nights, nightmares, etc is unworthy of consideration.
(I should note that I have no idea what this crew actually suffers from, if anything, but given I don't know, I support their right to seek compensation for injury, physical or mental, suffered as a result of alleged negligence).
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a legitimate lawsuit results in a manufacturer or component manufacturer (or airline) fixing a product/part which has demonstrated life threatening flaws and ultimately somewhere down the track saves lives then good on the pax/crew (the associated parasites can get stuffed) .
Unfortunately we can no longer rely on airlines, manufacturers etc. to do the right thing - they seem to only respond to the threat of financial loss.
Unfortunately we can no longer rely on airlines, manufacturers etc. to do the right thing - they seem to only respond to the threat of financial loss.
Thread Starter
To all those who are calling for the tech crew to go to Bunnings buy a bag of cement and harden up, might want to remember that as it stands, the aircraft overruled or ignored the inputs by the pilot. As I understand it they were pitching back whilst the aircraft was pitching down toward the ocean and not responding to the control inputs. Other than an Airbus I am not sure of another aircraft that would do this to you with the autopilot disconnected. If that doesn't wake you up in the middle of the night with cold sweats I don't know what will.
This court case may also bring out into the public arena some of Airbus's thinking on their design philosophy.
This unfortunately is very true. We also live in an era of weak regulators who do nothing until the horse has bolted. (or crashed)
This court case may also bring out into the public arena some of Airbus's thinking on their design philosophy.
Unfortunately we can no longer rely on airlines, manufacturers etc. to do the right thing - they seem to only respond to the threat of financial loss.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: australia
Age: 59
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
don't know about the tech crew but one f/a from that flight received some very serious injuries and has not been back to work since. this crew member is no chicken little, had a hazardous job pre QF. maufacturers/operators spend mimimum $$ for mimimum costs so if they get a few boots in the ar$e via lawsuits maybe they will spend a few more dollars in production/ maintenance to reduce further lawsuits. in the end it all comes down to the actuaries and how they value risk to crew/pax
As I said before and I will repeat, this will never make it to the inside of a court room. It will be settled out of court, perhaps at the eleventh hour prior to court but there is too much risk for Airbus and Northrop to take it to court and roll the dice.
Originally Posted by neville_nobody
Other than an Airbus I am not sure of another aircraft that would do this to you with the autopilot disconnected. If that doesn't wake you up in the middle of the night with cold sweats I don't know what will.
The numerous 737 rudder hard overs, Alaska Airlines MD-83, Boeing EC-135N in 1981, Malaysia Airlines 777 north of Perth.
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
Wikipedia says the MAS 777 only misbehaved whilst the AP was engaged.
The ATSB said ( http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...503722_001.pdf ):
"The autopilot was manually disconnected and nose down column was applied by the crew. The aircraft pitched to 18 degrees nose up and climbed to approximately FL410 with a rate of climb up to 10,560 feet per minute (fpm). The airspeed decreased from 270 kts to 158 kts. The autopilot (A/P) overspeed and stall protection activated simultaneously and the autopilot flight director system (AFDS) pitch mode failed prior to A/P disconnection. The stick shakers activated near the top of the climb."
In the ATSB animation of the recoded data, you can see around the 1 minute mark with the autopilot disconnect, forward movement of the control column and manual reduction of thrust the aircraft continues to pitch up.
YouTube - REAL Pitch Up Boeing 777 Incident
Fair enough but:
Not fair enough at all actually. At the back of the report it says:
So Wiki was right.
The pilot in command later reported that the PFD indications appeared normal when descending through FL200. He then reportedly selected the LEFT autopilot ‘ON’, but the aircraft banked to the right and the nose pitched down, so the autopilot was disengaged. A similar result occurred when the RIGHT autopilot was selected, so the pilot in command left the autopilot disengaged and manually flew the aircraft. The pilot in command reported that, with the autopilot disengaged, there were no further control difficulties experienced.
9M-MRG pitches nose-up to +17.6º and climbs through 38,590 ft
at a vertical speed increasing to 10,560 fpm. A/P overspeed and stall protection activate together and the AFDS pitch mode goes to FAIL resulting in A/T changing to speed mode. The A/P disengages and the thrust levers retard slightly before returning to original 65º position. A/P disconnect is again pressed and thrust levers retarded to 45º. All accelerations maintain their excessive values. Airspeed reduces through 241 kts.
at a vertical speed increasing to 10,560 fpm. A/P overspeed and stall protection activate together and the AFDS pitch mode goes to FAIL resulting in A/T changing to speed mode. The A/P disengages and the thrust levers retard slightly before returning to original 65º position. A/P disconnect is again pressed and thrust levers retarded to 45º. All accelerations maintain their excessive values. Airspeed reduces through 241 kts.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 23rd Sep 2010 at 13:08. Reason: bit at bottom added.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg, did not mean to offend mate. But I am from the old school, stiff upper lip and all that. I don't mean to upset anybody with that attitude, but being trained in my career by mostly surviving Bomber Command pilots, who taught no emotion, no fear, just do it attitude, and you had no balls if you could not follow their creed. I took that with me thru my whole career. Any mental stuff was not allowed in our time, it mean't you were not suitable, not good enough, and worse still, a coward. Times have changed, but blokes of our era find it difficult to understand all this mental stuff. Which is probably our problem.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
Maybe on another thread we could have a rational discussion on such matters as PTSD and it effects on pilots, I am sure we could fill a few pages with various anecdotes.
TG, your generation was schooled in the, for want of a better term, "suck it up big guy," mentality. In my opinion the price paid for that was well documented in the alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence and suicide statistics.
Maybe it is time we acknowledge that we are human just like anyone else and exhibit the same symptoms to a traumatic event as anyone else does. In some ways, being trained and knowledgable in aviation can make it worse.
Imagine how you would feel in the same situation? Nothing but Indian Ocean in the windscreen and your jet is NOT responding to the controls?
I personally know of at least one old school captain who had a traumatic event, kept it bottled in, and eventually had to be pensioned off when it began to seriously affect his flying performance. That's a loss of a career, for want of acknowledgement and treatment of his disorder.
In short, if you weren't there you really cannot comment on the event or the aftermath. Pilots have sued companies for myriad reasons. IMHO this one qualifies one hundred fold and we should leave it at that.
TG, your generation was schooled in the, for want of a better term, "suck it up big guy," mentality. In my opinion the price paid for that was well documented in the alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence and suicide statistics.
Maybe it is time we acknowledge that we are human just like anyone else and exhibit the same symptoms to a traumatic event as anyone else does. In some ways, being trained and knowledgable in aviation can make it worse.
Imagine how you would feel in the same situation? Nothing but Indian Ocean in the windscreen and your jet is NOT responding to the controls?
I personally know of at least one old school captain who had a traumatic event, kept it bottled in, and eventually had to be pensioned off when it began to seriously affect his flying performance. That's a loss of a career, for want of acknowledgement and treatment of his disorder.
In short, if you weren't there you really cannot comment on the event or the aftermath. Pilots have sued companies for myriad reasons. IMHO this one qualifies one hundred fold and we should leave it at that.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swh,
What the 777 MAS and the 330 QF have in common is an ADIRU dysfunction which led to in flight upset. But there is a MAJOR difference :
I believe the paragraph you quoted from page 22 is misleading and does not correlate with the overall report, FDR parameters included.
What the 777 MAS and the 330 QF have in common is an ADIRU dysfunction which led to in flight upset. But there is a MAJOR difference :
- The 777 upset was AP and AT induced.
- The 330 was nicely manually flown when the protections did the mess.
I believe the paragraph you quoted from page 22 is misleading and does not correlate with the overall report, FDR parameters included.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PTSD
Follow up care and support for someone experiencing a traumatic event and suing are totally different things. FTSD does not get cured by a pocket full of cash. I'm told the support these guys have received has been excellent.
I'm sure they did get the s@#t scared out of them but I don't think that's grounds for a financial gain unless they have suffered some form of injury or trauma that actually prevents them from continueing their employment, which I believe is not the case here. Unless there was some kind of cover up of a known faulty design from Airbus/Northrop, which has not been suggested, then this only harms our industry.
Still, I'm yet to be convinced that the pilots are actually involved in this case as I certainly don't believe the word of some ambulance chasing parasite. I hope they're not.
I'm sure they did get the s@#t scared out of them but I don't think that's grounds for a financial gain unless they have suffered some form of injury or trauma that actually prevents them from continueing their employment, which I believe is not the case here. Unless there was some kind of cover up of a known faulty design from Airbus/Northrop, which has not been suggested, then this only harms our industry.
Still, I'm yet to be convinced that the pilots are actually involved in this case as I certainly don't believe the word of some ambulance chasing parasite. I hope they're not.